Filing # 48683711 E-Filed 11/09/2016 10:48:49 AM RECEIVED, 11/09

Home , Deez Nuts (satirist), Mandy Grunwald, OZY (media company)

Filing # 48683711 E-Filed 11/09/2016 10:48:49 AM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, NEIL J. GILLESPIE FOR PRESIDENT,

Petitioners, PETITION NO. ______v. in forma pauperis

SECRETARY OF STATE KEN DETZNER, Florida’s Chief Election Officer,

Respondent. ______/

SEPARATE APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS #2

Exhibit 13 State ex rel. Perez et al. v. Wall, Judge

Exhibit 14 The Clinton Years, FRONTLINE PBS, "Buy One, Get One Free"

Exhibit 15 Laura Secorun Palet of Ozy.com, America’s First Female President?

Exhibit 16 Dennis Jacobs, The Secret Life of Judges, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2855

Exhibit 17 Bronson’s email and Gillespie’s Oath of Candidate

Exhibit 18 The ABA Journal article, and linked Washington Post story RECEIVED, 11/09/201610:53:49 AM,Clerk,Supreme Court Page 2 of 4

26 So. 1020 Page 1 49 L.R.A. 548, 41 Fla. 463, 26 So. 1020, 79 Am.St.Rep. 195 (Cite as: 49 L.R.A. 548, 41 Fla. 463, 26 So. 1020)

wherein Solon B. Turman is complainant, and Rita Supreme Court of Florida. Perez et al. are defendants, and in which it is made STATE ex rel. PEREZ et al. to appear that said judge has refused to act on the v. ground that he is disqualified. WALL, Judge. Nov. 7, 1899. The ground of disqualification relied on by the judge in his answer is that his wife and the father of Application by the state of Florida, on the relation the wife of complainant, Solon B. Turman, were of Rita Perez and others, for a writ of mandamus to brother and sister of the full blood, and that his (the Joseph B. Wall, judge of the Sixth judicial circuit. judge's) wife and the wife of Solon B. Turman were Denied. still living. The question is whether the husbands of an aunt and niece of the full blood are so related to West Headnotes each other as to disqualify*464 the one from sitting as judge in a case in which the other is an interested Judges 227 45 party.

227 Judges Our statute provides that ‘no judge of any court 227IV Disqualification to Act shall sit or preside in any cause to which he is a 227k45 k. Relationship to Party or Person In- party or in which he is interested, or in which he terested. Most Cited Cases would be excluded from being a juror by reason of Under F.S.A. § 314.10, providing that a judge shall interest, consanguinity or affinity to either of the not preside in any cause in which he would be ex- parties; **1021 nor shall he entertain any motion in cluded from being a juror by reason of interest, or the cause other than to have the same tried by a consanguinity or affinity to either of the parties, a qualified tribunal.’ Rev. St. § 967. judge is disqualified to sit in a case in which the husband of his wife's niece is an interested party. It has been correctly stated that ‘the common law was watchful over the purity of the jury trial, and, Syllabus by the Court to secure the fair administration of justice, guarded against the influence of those passions most likely Under section 967, Rev. St., husbands of an aunt to pervert the judgment of men in deciding upon the and niece are so related to each other by affinity as conduct and controversies of their fellow men.’ to disqualify the one from sitting as judge in a case Jaques v. Com., 10 Grat. 690. Challenges were al- in which the other is an interested party. lowed to the polls in capita, which were exceptions *463 **1020 Gunby & Gibbons and C. C. Whi- to particular jurors, and they were also either prin- taker, for relators. cipal or to the favor. ‘A third ground of challenge to the polls is propter affectum,-as that a juryman is Sparkman & Carter, for respondent. of kin to either party within the ninth degree.’ 2 Tidd, Prac. 853. And this was a principal challenge. The venire facias commanded the sheriff to sum- MABRY, J. mon 12 good and lawful men of the body of the county, qualified according to law, by whom the This is a proceeding by mandamus to compel the truth of the matter might be the better known, and Hon. Joseph B. Wall, judge of the Sixth judicial cir- who were in no wise of kin to either party, to make cuit, to take cognizance of and determine a certain the jury. Id. 778. Under this writ, relations by affin- cause pending in Hillsboro county, in said circuit,

26 So. 1020 Page 2 49 L.R.A. 548, 41 Fla. 463, 26 So. 1020, 79 Am.St.Rep. 195 (Cite as: 49 L.R.A. 548, 41 Fla. 463, 26 So. 1020)

ity were excluded from the jury. As Lord Coke ested party. But how stands *466 it when the says, ‘affinity,’ in one sense, is taken for niece's husband is a party? It was decided in Kelly ‘consanguinity’ or ‘kindred,’-as in the writ of v. Neely, 12 Ark. 657, that in such a case the judge venire facias; that affinity is a principal challenge was disqualified. In Tennessee it was held that a of a juror, and equivalent to consanguinity, when it judge was not disqualified by affinity to sit in a is between either of the parties,-as if the plaintiff or case where his wife's sister's husband was an inter- defendant marry the daughter or cousin of the juror, ested party. Judge Cooper, in speaking for the court or *465 the juror marry the daughter or cousin of (Hume v. Bank, 10 Lea, 1), says that: ‘Affinity, as the plaintiff or defendant, and the same continues, distinguished from consanguinity, signifies the rela- or issue be had. Co. Litt. 157. tion which each party to a marriage, the husband and the wife, bears to the kindred or blood relations It had been decided by this court that relationship, of the other. The marriage having made them one either by consanguinity or affinity, to one of the person, the blood relations of each are held as re- parties to a suit, within the ninth degree, is, by the lated by affinity in the same degree to the one common law, a ground of principal challenge of a spouse as by consanguinity to the other;’ but ‘the juror. O'Connor v. State, 9 Fla. 215; Morrison v. relationship by affinity does not extend further, and McKinnon, 12 Fla. 552. It was held in Ex parte hence the maxim ‘Affinis mei affinis non est mihi Harris, 26 Fla. 77, 7 South. 1, 6 L. R. A. 713, that affinis,’-a person related by affinity to one who is affinity is the tie between a husband and the blood related to me by affinity is not related to me by af- relatives of the wife, and between a wife and the finity.' The rule stated is all right, but its application blood relatives of the husband; but it does not exist to the facts of the case causes us trouble. A judge between the blood relatives of either party to the undoubtedly is related by affinity to his wife's sis- marriage and those of the other, and consequently ter, her blood relative; but the sister's husband is no affinity existed between a brother of a wife and not so related under the rule, according to this de- the brother of her husband, so as to disqualify the cision, because he is the affinis of his wife. We do husband's brother from presiding in a trial where not think it can be maintained that a husband is re- the wife's brother was charged with crime. The lated to his wife by affinity. They are embraced in principle stated that no affinity exists between the the definition of neither affinity nor consanguinity, respective blood relatives of the parties to the mar- but are regarded in law, as correctly stated by Judge riage is unquestionably true, and was decisive of Cooper, as one person. If we undertake to apply the the case; and it is also true, as a general rule, that rule of affinity to the relation of husband and wife, affinity only exists between a husband and the con- we cannot exclude the husband from sitting in a sanguinei of his wife, and, vice versa, between a case where his wife has the right to sue alone, and wife and the consanguinei of her husband. The dic- is an interested party, as they are not related to each tionaries generally define direct affinity to be the other by affinity or consanguinity; and no one relation brought about by marriage between a hus- would ever suppose that this was permissible. We band and the kindred of his wife and between a admit that a decided*467 majority of the American wife and the kindred of her husband. courts, as shown by cases cited, in applying the rule of affinity, have announced conclusions that would Under the rule stated, Judge Wall is related by af- not disqualify a judge to sit in a case where the hus- finity to Solon B. Turman's wife within the ninth band of his wife's niece was an interested party ( degree, whether we reckon according to the canon- Higbe v. Leonard, 1 Denio, 186; Eggleston v. Smi- ical rule or by the civil law, she being the niece of ley, 17 Johns. 133; Rector v. Drury, 4 Chand. the full blood of the judge's wife, and he could not, [Wis.] 24; Chinn v. State, 47 Ohio St. 575, 26 N. E. of course, preside in a case where she was an inter- 986, 11 L. R. A. 630; Kirby v. State, 89 Ala. 63, 8

http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&fn=_top&rs=W... 5/18/2010 Page 4 of 4

26 So. 1020 Page 3 49 L.R.A. 548, 41 Fla. 463, 26 So. 1020, 79 Am.St.Rep. 195 (Cite as: 49 L.R.A. 548, 41 Fla. 463, 26 So. 1020)

South. 110; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415; Oneal wife was sister to plaintiff's wife, and where the v. State, 47 Ga. 229; Johnson v. Richardson, 52 brother of the defendant's wife had married the Tex. 481; Moses v. State, 11 Humph. 232; Bigelow daughter of the sheriff; and it was decided by Chan- v. Sprague, 140 Mass. 425, 5 N. E. 144; Rank v. cellor Walworth ( Paddock v. Wells, 2 Barb. Ch. Shewey, 4 Watts, 218; Chase v. Jennings, 38 Me. 331) that: ‘Relationship by affinity may exist 44; Tegarden v. Phillips, 14 Ind. App. 27, 42 N. E. between the husband and one who is connected by 549), but they proceed upon the theory, it seems to marriage with a blood relative of the wife. Thus, us, that the relation of husband and wife is one of where two men marry sisters, they become related affinity, and the rule as to such relation is applied. to each other in the second degree of affinity, as We are of opinion that they should be regarded their wives are related in the second degree of con- **1022 as one person in law, so far as the question sanguinity.’ See, also, note to Cain v. Ingham, 7 under consideration is concerned, and this will dis- Cow. 478, Marshall v. Eure, 1 Dyer, 37b, and Rail- qualify a judge where any blood relative of his road Co. v. Schuyler, 28 How. Prac. 187. wife, within the ninth degree, or the husband or wife of such relative, is an interested party. Princip- Our judgment is that, whenever a judge will be dis- al challenges or to the favor of jurors proceeded qualified to sit in a case because a blood relative of upon the ground that they were biased in favor of his wife is a party, he will likewise be excluded one of the parties, and thereby rendered unfit to de- when the husband or wife or such relative is a termine the truth of the matter to be submitted to party, as they should be regarded as one person in them. When they were interested in the matter to be interest and in law, so far as the matter in litigation tried, or were of kin to either party in the ninth de- is involved. The result is that *469 the peremptory gree, there was such a manifest presumption, in writ of mandamus will be denied, and it will be so law, of partiality, as to set them aside as for a prin- ordered. As the writ must be denied on the ground cipal cause of challenge; and when the challenge stated, we do not consider the propriety of the rem- was to the favor it was determined by triors. Out edy resorted to in this case. See State v. Call statute disqualifies a judge when he would be ex- (decided at this term) 26 South. 1016. Order to be cluded from being a juror by reason of interest, entered denying peremptory writ. consanguinity, or affinity to either of the parties; *468 and whatever interest, consanguinity, or affin- Fla. 1899 ity that would, in law, exclude a juror as for prin- State v. Wall cipal cause of challenge, will disqualify the judge. 49 L.R.A. 548, 41 Fla. 463, 26 So. 1020, 79 The statement of the rule by Chitty in his book on Am.St.Rep. 195 Criminal Law (volume 1, pp. 541, 542) is as fol- lows: ‘The third description of challenges are those END OF DOCUMENT which arise propter affectum, or on the ground of some presumed or actual partiality in the juryman who is made the subject of objection; for the writ, requiring that the jury should be free from all exception, and have no affinity to either party, Must evidently include both these grounds of challenge. If, have no affinity to either party, must evidently within the ninth degree, though it is only by marriage, a principal challenge will be admitted.’ In Mounson v. West, 1 Leon. 88, it is stated that it had been held a principal challenge where the sheriff's

http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&fn=_top&rs=W... 5/18/2010 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

PBS.org

WATCH SCHEDULE TOPICS ABOUT FRONTLINE SHOP TEACHER CENTER SUPPO

RECENT S

In October 1991, five-term Arkansas Love at First Governor Bill Clinton declared he was Sight running for President of the United States. For the team starting to build around him, it The Campaign was political love at first sight -- Clinton Unravels appeared to be the centrist, charismatic candidate for whom they had been waiting... The Comeback Kid Stephanopoulos: It's hard to talk about it now, because it's become common wisdom to The Mother of All everybody else. But at that time it was a new Campaigners experience, this notion of meeting someone Buy One, Get who is not just in your face, but kind of in your One Free skin from the moment he meets you. You know, you just feel completely connected to We Are Gonna him when he turns to you. Win

... Oh, the smarts. The guy had thought everything through, both on the politics and the policy. I remember when I interviewed for the job, which wasn't really an interview. It was him -- me listening basically for an hour and a half to Governor Clinton just go through the entire landscape of the campaign. And he JOIN OUR NE basically, the very first time I talked to him, in the seamless web of issues and politics said, "It's all going to come down to Illinois on e-mail address March 17th. If I win the game in Illinois, I'll get the nomination." Exactly what happened. But he had it in his head back in September. 14 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

Begala: I had been in the business for a number of years by then and it was still political love at first sight. I thought he was the ablest guy I Like 989K people had ever met in politics. your friends

Emanuel: Early on, until part of December, there was still the Cuomo Follow @frontlinep cloud that hung over -- that he was going to enter the field. You had two senators. One was Bob Kerrey, and his past, specifically his FRONTLINE biography as it related to Vietnam, was kind of the new face of the party. You also had Senator Harkin in there and former Senator Tsongas. So that combination. I remember my father, when I said I was going down to Little Rock to work for Governor Clinton's run for president, he thought maybe somebody needed to check the medication cabinet. He thought somebody was playing around with it. He had never heard of him, he said. I said, "Well, I think he's going to be the next President of the United States."

Myers: I saw a candidate who knew why he wanted to be president and he knew how to get there. He didn't know whether he would be successful but he had in his head kind of a roadmap based on issues. He had a sense of where the country was. There was this uneasiness that there was this kind of economic anxiety and he was pulling together a team that was going to help him get there. But, you know, he was the engine that was driving it, and from the very beginning I was really aware this was a special politician. This was somebody who had more innate talent, both with the substantive side and the politics, than anyone I'd been around. And it was just fascinating to watch him.

Begala: Most politicians, when they meet with a guy like me, or a guy like Carville, tell you about how they can win. They would say, "Look, my wife is from Illinois, which will help me in the Midwest, even though I'm a southerner and I have close alliances with these moderates." They would give you the strategy. Clinton gave us the policy....

I was bowled over. And then he went through the policy specifics, and he focused on these two things. He said, "Economically we're sliding down, and socially we're coming apart." I used to tease him that he had three solutions for every problem, but he went on like this for hours, and we were completely bowled over.

January 1992 was a bad month for Bill Clinton. First there were the allegations from Gennifer Flowers that she had carried on a 12-year affair with the governor, and then came the charges that Bill Clinton had avoided the Vietnam draft. The lurching from crisis to crisis not only took its toll on the candidate's popularity, but also shook the campaign staff's faith in him. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

Carville: December went fine. If you remember, Cuomo was thinking about running, he decided that he wasn't gonna run and we sort of were doing -- picking up pretty good in the polls. We had a pretty good December. Then in January, as we say in the trade, we got a little incoming.

Stephanopoulos: The first [Star tabloid story] came out and it was kind of easy. It was -- the Star alleged that Clinton had affairs with five women, all who had denied it in the past. It had come up in his Arkansas gubernatorial campaigns. And, you know, we just said, "We don't know why everybody's changing their story today or why the Star is printing that stuff. It's just cash for trash. And let's keep moving."

Carville: [on the cash for trash strategy]: I think the strategy was to say that there was a lot of money that was passing hands here. It was all odd that this was coming up this 10 days or whatever it was before the election [New Hampshire primary]. I think the strategy was pretty obvious and I think the strategy worked pretty good.

Begala: A lot of times in a campaign you get in trouble, and the inclination of handlers is to hide the candidate, to so-called "protect" him. Well, in this case, there was no one else who could answer anyway, and he was our ablest spokesman. So we set about looking for a venue where he could go and answer these things.

Myers: I think basically all we tried to do was survive. It was really a tremendous feeding frenzy. I remember we were making a swing through the south right around the time all hell was breaking loose. And Governor Edwards was there and he said, "Now, what's this story about this, this girl?" Clinton kind of said, "Yeah," blah, blah, blah. And he said, "How much did they pay her?" And Clinton said, "Well, that's the point, it's $150,000." And Edwards says, "$150,000? If they paid all my girls $150,000 they'd be broke." And Clinton just cracked up because it was much-needed comic relief at the time.

Carville: You've got to fight back. Yes, sir. And our strategy from day one was to contest at every point. And, to have them out there... the best person to give the explanation of what happened and where it was, was then-Governor Clinton and Mrs. Clinton. And that's why we did the 60 Minutes thing, because it was the biggest deal that there was, and you had to be shown that you were out taking it on.

You advised the president that the best thing he had going for him in that interview was Mrs. Clinton.

Carville: Yeah.

How come? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

Carville: Because in the end, if the wife is with... you know, people overwhelmingly, they say, "Look, that's his wife, they're fine." ... Clearly had he gone on without her it would have been a big gap...then my advice would have been if she wouldn't go, don't go.

Stephanopoulos: And what worked for them was, I think, a couple of things. One, they did it together. Again, once the couple is together, it says to the rest of the world, "This is our business, not yours." And two, and it's hard to get back to this at a time when the country is doing so great right now, but in January 1992 a lot of people around the country were worried about the economy. People were hurting. And the very basic message -- that the campaign should be about everybody else's future, not my past -- was very powerful to a lot of people watching, especially in New Hampshire.

Myers: So, you argue the facts and you try to make the case that Clinton has always had political enemies, Arkansas is an interesting state in that regard. A lot of stuff had gone on. But, obviously, over time as Gennifer Flowers gave way to the draft, to other questions, it became harder. And it became hard for people like myself and George Stephanopoulos and Paul Begala who had to go out there and defend him every day. You learned to be very careful and you learn to listen very carefully to what he said, and you learn to try not to go further than what he said. And we had a lot of conversations over the months and years about "What do you think that means?" You know, "What can we say? Where's the safe ground here?"

Stephanopoulos: One of things that James and I tried to do very early on was to authorize just a full investigation of our own record, of Clinton's own record, of Clinton's own statements, so that we would -- at a minimum, we wouldn't compound any problems by saying things that weren't true. And that there wouldn't be any problem of, you know, telling the story of what happened in Vietnam. The problem is when you appear to be lying about it. But you know, there was a great reluctance to do that. We ended up doing some. But by the time we really did a full vet of Clinton's background, it was too late. The stories were already coming out.

Begala: We were handed [the draft letter] as we landed in New Hampshire. We had been in Arkansas. The governor had gotten badly sick, a high, high fever. And this story of the draft had broken in the Wall Street Journal, and he had to go home. He was bad sick. So he was home trying to recuperate. We were getting poll numbers that showed us absolutely collapsing in a way we never did with the earlier scandals. And so we stayed up all night writing a speech that basically said, "I'm going to fight like hell." You know, "We're not going to give up. Try this one more time." And we flew up there, and we're landed, and we're all revved up, and he's ready to go. And as we got off the http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

plane, Mark Halperin of ABC hands Georgie and I this letter, and I'm looking over George's shoulder as he reads it, and I see that line, "Thank you for saving me from the draft," and my knees kind of buckled. And George said, "That's it. We're through. We're out. It's over."

Carville: I said, you know, "If anybody who is 21-22 years old could write a letter like this you could almost see kind of a future president there." So we took the letter, published it, put it in the newspaper, and we get a Nightline date.... Nightline did an interesting thing. They read the whole letter.

Begala: Ted [Koppel] read the whole letter to the country, and you could see, even among the press corps, which really did think he was a slick Willie, you could see for the first time they thought, "Well, okay. This is a highly nuanced letter from a tortured young man who's really thinking through these issues just like every other young man of that generation did."

So your initial reaction was wrong? I mean, you initially thought that maybe this was --

Begala: Before I had read it. The first thing I saw was that line. But, no, even me, who did not have much of a feel for that time, I thought, "Yeah, this letter" -- I mean, the line we used was, "This letter is going to be your best friend."

Following the early scandals of the campaign, it looked like Bill Clinton's candidacy was over. Yet the governor refused to give up, even if it meant he had to shake every hand in the state of New Hampshire. Amazingly, he came in second in that primary and declared that "New Hampshire has made Bill Clinton the Comeback Kid."

Myers: Over the course of his public life, he's never been more focused than when his back was up against the wall. I don't want to say it helped him, but it was the fire that steeled him for the rest of the campaign. He was a much better candidate for going through New Hampshire, not just because of the scandals, but getting down there and campaigning and looking in people's eyes. And he really absorbed a lot of -- he really did feel their pain. I mean it was an amazing thing to watch.

But, yeah, he took the scandal, what was handed to him or the situation that he helped create, and he managed to -- he took the energy from that and he did manage to boomerang it. He was the focus. Everybody was watching him, waiting for him to go down. And http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

what did he do? He used that spotlight to turn the thing from being about him to being about what he could do for the people.

Stephanopoulos: There's nothing you can do on election day. Election day in campaigns you basically wait. And we waited in James' hotel suite. And we waited for the first exit polls, which would come in around 11:00 o'clock. And we were a pretty grubby crew at that point. It was kind of James, me, Paul, Bob Boriston. Mandy [Grunwald, media advisor] was around. And what I remember most vividly waiting for the exit polls was James walking around the suite in his undershirt lashing himself on the back with a piece of rope like a medieval penitent and --just lashing himself, lashing himself, lashing himself.

And then the first exit polls come in. And miracle of miracles we're a strong second place. And everything changes. We order cheeseburgers. Paul and Bob start to write out the acceptance speech that night. Clinton is still out campaigning. He's amazing. But the germ of what turned out to be one of the most memorable lines of the campaigns started then. I don't know who takes credit for it now or who gets credit, but I think it was some combination of Paul and Mandy came up with the line, "Tonight New Hampshire's made me the Comeback Kid." And we all felt like comeback kids that afternoon because the campaign had been on life support and now we had a second chance.

Bill Clinton's staff was in awe of his ability to campaign. They had never seen anything like it and in private called him "Secretariat." His volatile temper -- or what was known as the "standard morning outbursts" -- was mainly kept in private. And by the summer of 1992, the governor's grasp of the issues, his ability to empathize, and his sheer tenacity paid off. It was clear he would be the Democrats' choice.

Stephanopoulos: We called him "Secretariat" because he was just the absolute thoroughbred of thoroughbreds of campaigners. Whether it was working a rope line or giving a speech or devising the policy or just having the stamina to last through four 20-hour campaign days in a row and do it with good humor and grace. None of us had ever seen anything like this before. I mean, he is the politician probably not only of his generation, but if you're thinking just pure raw political skills, probably the politician of the century. And it was an awesome sight to watch.

Carville: You had the sense that these were really, kind of, extraordinary people and extraordinarily talented. Okay? And I don't, it's kind of a hard -- you can't really define it, but there was a certain http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

way that he could change a chemistry in a room. He could walk into a room of a hundred people and immediately have the sense of who the most vulnerable person was, whose mother just died or who just had a child that had a crisis or something like that. And it's an instinctive thing. I can't explain it. I've just seen it happen again and again and again.

Myers: I'm a baseball freak. So, I say he's the guy who could throw a no-hitter and hit 50 home runs. I mean nobody can do that, nobody can master the substantive side of policy and genuinely thrive on the human contact of the politics. But he does both. And, I mean he was the best strategist in the campaign, most of the time. He was totally steeped in the details of "How many electoral votes, how many states are we targeting, why are we targeting them, what's our organization in those states, who are the local elected officials who are going to be with us, does this make sense?" Every step of the way he was totally involved in decision-making.

... Sometimes, I shouldn't say save him from himself, he's obviously tremendously successful, but one of his tendencies has been and throughout his presidency at times, has been to try to do everything, to talk about every issue, emphasize everything, which means you're emphasizing nothing. So, that was the flip side of him. He's interested in everything. He has encyclopedic knowledge. He has a voracious sort of appetite for information about everything from the Beatles to the details of nuclear disarmament.

Early in the campaign, Clinton declared that he and his wife were basically a bargain deal -- "buy one, get one free." While Mrs. Clinton was credited for keeping the candidate and the campaign focused, she also became an issue herself. In the spring of 1992 -- following criticism of her law firm's work with the state of Arkansas -- she defended her decision not to "stay home and bake cookies." From that moment on, Hillary Clinton was as controversial a figure as her husband.

Myers: And then after January and February of 1992, the Gennifer Flowers thing broke and they appeared on 60 Minutes together. There was a sense that he was in debt to her. And he was obliged to take seriously her advice.

... By defending him and standing by him and saying to the world, "You know, we've had our ups and downs, it's none of your business. We're still together. And, you know, leave us alone." And-- I mean, what could anybody else really say at that point?

So, there was an indebtedness to her because she had saved him? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

Myers: Yeah. And I think that that's been a pattern throughout probably their relationship, before I knew them, but certainly in his presidency. I mean, he tends to do worse when he's furthest and then he screws up and she helps save him and then he's sort of much more -- indebted, obliged, mindful, all those things. And I suspect it probably was that way before I was around.

Stephanopoulos: I think I was sitting with Paul, chatting with a few reporters, drinking a cup of coffee in the coffee shop while they did their thing meeting with people. And then all the sudden, Hillary starts to do this kind of impromptu -- reporters had gathered around at this impromptu press conference.

I don't remember much of what she said except the words that everyone would soon know, "tea and cookies." And it was just like bam, all of us all of the sudden perked up and said, "That's going to be a problem." because it was just too good a phrase. You know, it was just impossible for any reporter sitting there that day not to use the most resonant, rich, colloquial phrase she could possibly use to describe her choice to work in a law firm as opposed to staying at home. And we knew it was a problem. But nobody wanted to tell her, because that wouldn't be fun at all.

And I was sitting there with Paul, like the old Life commercial, saying, "No, I'm not going to do it, you go do it." "No, I'm not going to do it, you go do it."... We knew it was a problem the minute she said "tea and cookies." And we knew a lot of people would take it as proof that she is this radical feminist who has no respect for traditional women. And we're going to have to try to clean it up.

Begala: As soon as I heard that, I thought, "People are going to take that out of context. They're going to suggest she doesn't care about stay-at-home moms." So I went up to her and I told her that. I pulled her aside, and I said, "You know, Hillary, you've got to go restate this. People are going to think that's an attack on stay-at-home moms."

And she had the most wounded and naive look on her face. It is -- to think of all she's gone through since then, it's hard to imagine. She had no idea that that might be taken out of context. She said, "No one could think that." She said, "I would have given anything to be a stay-at-home mom. My mother was a stay-at-home mom. I just didn't have a choice because Bill was making $35,000 a year and we needed to support the family."

I said, "I know that." And she said, "Oh, you worry too much." I mean, it was unimaginable to her that that would be a firestorm. I was certain it would be. I had been doing this for a while. So she went back out and tried to clean it up, but it was too late. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

Stephanopoulos: What it was was, you know, we're trying to figure out the damage that had been done, not only by the "tea and cookies," but just the overall primary campaign. It looked then like we were on the road to the nomination since Stan [Greenberg, polling advisor] had done some focus groups, dial-up groups, you know. But the footage that was used for Hillary was footage from election night 1992, in New Hampshire where she had this elaborate Nefertiti-style hairdo that night -- one that I've never seen since and had not seen before. And it really was something.

But we were all sitting around the focus group watching these dials, and up until that point they had been pretty steady. And then this picture of Mrs. Clinton comes on and the dial groups go like [noise], and Clinton doesn't miss a beat. He just says, "Oh, they don't like her hair." And I'm sitting next to James on the couch and he starts to grind his fist into my thigh because it was -- for us, it was like someone farted in church and we were about to start laughing uncontrollably. And we were just holding it in and he's grinding his fist into my thigh. And we finally, we're not breathing, we finally run out of the room, get into the hallway, and just break up laughing.

Now, looking back, it was kind of sweet that Clinton said that. His instinct was to protect her -- he's a smart politician and he knew that we had a pretty serious problem coming out of "tea and cookies" and that a lot of people had very strong feelings about Mrs. Clinton. And he was kind of just being protective of her in that moment. We didn't dwell on it that day.

By the fall of '92, following the Democratic Convention and the nomination of Al Gore as vice president, it started to look like Governor Bill Clinton might win the election. And then, with 43 percent of the vote and 13 months after the campaign began, William Jefferson Clinton won the presidency. His campaign staff recall when they realized their candidate would be the next president.

In '92 when do you know that you're going to win? When are you pretty sure?

Begala: In Parrot, Georgia. We took a bus trip through Georgia, as I worked for Zell Miller and his http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

campaign in 1990, so I knew the state fairly well. And we were on a bus with Zell, and with some other Georgia politicians. We went through this little town called Parrot, Georgia, and we drew more people in Parrot, Georgia than the total population of the town. And-- it was raining, and I looked out there, and I thought, "You know, we're going to win this race." And that night in some little motel in I don't know where, I called Stephanopoulos, and I was just giggling. I was giddy. And I sat there on some crummy bed in some crummy motel, and I said, "George, I will guarantee you this, we win this election." I can't remember what month it was, but it was in the fall campaign. That was the moment.

Stephanopoulos: I remember the first time I ever really let myself believe we could win and we were going to win. It was late September in the Washington Hilton on a Sunday morning and Clinton was about to go give a speech in North Carolina on NAFTA. And he called me in and had his standard morning outburst on the speech and was yelling about it. But his heart wasn't really in it and I could tell. And I kind of sat there, I was in his bedroom and just took it. He was lying back, propped up in his jeans on his bed, propped up on about two pillows. And he suddenly stops yelling, looks me right in the eye and says, "You think we're going to win, don't you?" I said, "Well, yeah." And he goes, "I do too." And for me, that was just incredible.

He was saying out loud what we all hoped for but could never say. It would be like talking about a no-hitter in the eighth inning. And from that moment on inside we didn't feel like underdogs anymore. We felt like we had this responsibility to win. And as a staffer, it was starting to get a little bit out of control because, you know, I had never been through anything like that and nobody else had either.

Begala: The day before the election we were at the Mayfair Diner in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. And this is maybe, professionally, aside from the birth of my child during that campaign, the sweetest moment. I was the guy that told Bill Clinton he was going to win. I had gotten the final polling numbers. He had a comfortable lead. He was not going to lose. And as he climbed into the car at the Mayfair Diner, I told him. I said, "Governor, it's over. You're going to be the President of the United States." And he said, "How do you know that? What do you think?" And I gave him the latest numbers, and he said, "That may not hold." So I told him what the latest numbers were for Reagan in '80, and then what the final election was. And I think that historical comparison -- and he didn't say anything then. He just kind of quieted down, and his eyes got big and he sat back. That was very sweet.

Myers: So we finished our little tour and I remember going to the Governor's Mansion and down to the basement about 8 o'clock and-- I http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/chapters/1.html#5

mean, by that point we already knew it was pretty much over. I mean, we knew we were going to win. But seeing that map, standing in the basement -- they had a TV down there -- and standing in the basement with him and he kind of had a half grin on his face looking at the map turning whatever color we were. I think it was different on different networks. But, you know, as the electoral college count came in and he was closer and closer to that magic number, and it was just the weirdest. ... It's like, "Wow, here we are and he's the next president and he's just standing here in his basement, watching TV like millions of other Americans right now." It was just very strange -- in an odd way slightly anticlimactic, even though it's the biggest thing that can ever happen in politics to you.

Home | Chapters | Interviews | Anecdotes | Photo Gallery

Copyright ©2000 ABC News Internet Ventures. Click here for Ter ms of U se and Privacy Policy and Internet Safety Information applicable to this site. http://www.ozy.com/flashback/americas-first-female-president-been-there-done-that/61409

FLASHBACK (HTTP://WWW.OZY.COM/FLASHBACK)

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE Because she ran a country and never asked for applause, or votes.

By Laura Secorun Palet THE DAILY DOSE SEPT 13 2015

It’s 1920, and a stout, round-faced woman wearing a long dark dress paces vigorously around the White House carrying a pile of mail and memos. Meanwhile, journalists huddle by the entrance, notebooks in hand, waiting to catch a glimpse of the person running the country: her.

Sorry, Hillary Clinton, but America has already had its first (acting) female president (http://www.ozy.com/immodest-proposal/why-you-should-be-president/41468). Three decades before Clinton was born, Edith Wilson, Woodrow Wilson’s second wife, ran the Oval Office for 17 months. Nobody voted for her, and she never actually referred to herself as president, but she did take charge of many executive duties after her husband was left incapacitated by a massive stroke.

15 http://www.ozy.com/flashback/americas-first-female-president-been-there-done-that/61409

Back then, the U.S. Constitution didn’t specify what to do if the president was unable to fulfill his duties (it does now). There was no mechanism in place for automatically transferring power to the vice president. To further complicate matters, Wilson’s second-in-command was an unambitious man named Thomas R. Marshall, who, even when Woodrow was paralyzed, bedridden and suffering memory loss, vehemently refused to assume the president’s duties for fear of assassination.

Faced with the prospect of her husband’s legacy falling apart, and following the advice of his physician — who thought Woodrow might lose the will to live if he lost the presidency — the first lady took matters into her own hands. She didn’t do it out of political ambition so much as affection: Edith and Woodrow, both widowed, quickly fell in love, marrying (http://www.ozy.com/flashback/this-us-president- married-a-college-coed/41605) just three months after their first encounter in 1915. Edith Bolling Galt, the daughter of a landowning but broke Virginia family, was 14 years younger than Woodrow and had just two years of formal education, but she was equipped with a bright mind and strong sense of duty. Before the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, the first lady was focused on hosting parties, but as the war grew, she dropped the hostess act to help the federal rationing effort, observing gasless Sundays, meatless Mondays and wheatless Wednesdays. She even traded in the White House gardeners for grazing sheep so as not to steal manpower from the war.

After Woodrow’s stroke, Wilson controlled all communication to and from the president — who, though bedridden and exhausted, was still lucid — and gave orders on his behalf to rally support for the Treaty of Versailles and to lobby the Carnegie Steel Co. to negotiate an end to the steelworkers’ strike that was crippling the country. To be sure, there were limits to what Wilson could do, and she never admitted to making any decisions impacting governance. Betty Van Iersel, a guide at the Woodrow Wilson House and a researcher, says, “In [Edith’s] autobiography, she only mentions taking care of him and coordinating with his physician,” making everything else “pure speculation.”

Yet Wilson’s considerable power over state affairs didn’t go unnoticed. Congressmen complained, labeling Woodrow’s second term a “petticoat presidency,” and newspapers wrote about what they called a “regency presidency.” Praise came from some corners: Dolly Gann, writer for a Republican newspaper, lauded Wilson for working for the good of the country, and London’s Daily Mail even called her a “perfectly capable president.” Official records and third-party accounts suggest that http://www.ozy.com/flashback/americas-first-female-president-been-there-done-that/61409 her role stretched far beyond that of a caretaker and into a gatekeeper of Woodrow’s vision at a crucial time when the U.S. Congress was still in the process of approving the Treaty of Versailles to end the war. Andrew Phillips, curator at the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, says things could have been much worse for foreign affairs if an open power struggle had ensued between Cabinet members. “Edith provided some stability at a very crucial time,” he adds.

After Woodrow’s term ended in 1921, the couple retired and stayed in Washington, D.C., where he died three years later. But Edith’s commitment to Woodrow’s vision lived on: She continued to reside in their home for decades and made an effort to maintain some of the rooms as they had been when he was alive, allowing no renovations and helping raise money for organizations to preserve Woodrow’s legacy (http://www.ozy.com/flashback/does-democracy-need-lame-ducks/37055).

Edith Wilson died on December 28, 1961, on the anniversary of the birth of Woodrow, the man she loved so much, and for whom she steadied the helm.

Tales from the past to titillate and educate while giving you a lens on the present and future. Fordham Law Review

Volume 75 | Issue 6 Article 4

2007 The ecrS et Life of Judges Dennis Jacobs

Recommended Citation Dennis Jacobs, The Secret Life of Judges, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2855 (2007). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol75/iss6/4

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The orF dham Law School Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized administrator of The orF dham Law School Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

16 THE JOHN F. SONNETT MEMORIAL LECTURE

THE SECRET LIFE OF JUDGES

Dennis Jacobs* Dean Treanor, distinguished faculty, students, alumni, colleagues, and fellow friends of Fordham Law School, I am honored more than I can say to be invited to deliver this distinguished lecture in the post-centennial year of this great law school-now, this venerable law school. I am going to express my gratitude by saying some things that matter to me, that are not often said, and that distill observations that have (increasingly) bemused me over the fourteen years that I have been a judge. The title of my lecture gives little clue, I suspect, as to what I am going to say; but it is not a tease. I am going to talk about "The Secret Life of Judges," by which I mean a habit of mind that, among so many admirable features of the judicial mentality, amounts to a serious and secret bias. There is a social reluctance to talk about this kind of thing. It sounds sanctimonious. Then again, a neat thing about giving a lecture is that it disarms inhibitions about lecturing people. I get to be sanctimonious without worrying about it. This lecture is about bias, the judge's inbred preference for outcomes controlled by proceduralism, the adversary system, hearings and experts, representation by lawyers, ramified complexity of doctrines and rules, multiple prongs, and all things that need and use lawyers, enrich them, and empower them vis-A-vis other sources of power and wisdom. Let me make this bias concrete by example. If you arrived in an appellate court as counsel for a medical-malpractice plaintiff, and the three individuals on the bench were wearing white coats instead of black robes and had stethoscopes around their necks, I think your heart would sink. I could tell you that the three doctors deciding your case have taken an oath to be impartial as between patients and the medical profession and that they are conscientious, decent individuals who take seriously the obligation to be neutral. You would not be reassured: You would understand that there is (at least) an internalized bias that the doctors would not acknowledge because they would not notice it. A similar dread would come over the

* Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. These remarks were made on November 20, 2006, at the 2006 John F. Sonnett Memorial Lecture held at Fordham University School of Law. This transcript of Chief Judge Jacobs's remarks has been lightly edited.

2855 2856 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 75 defendant's lawyer if the three judges each had a limb suspended in traction. In our courts, judges are lawyers. They are all lawyers. Most of us have never been, nor want to be, anything else. We are proud of being lawyers. For many of us (like myself), lawyering is our only talent (assuming we have any talent at all), and it is the source of as much esteem as we enjoy. Our calling says a lot about how our minds work, what we respect, and whom we trust. I am not-I repeat, I am not-speaking about a bias based upon politics or agenda, economic class, ethnicity, or para-ethnicity. When I refer to the secret life of judges, I am speaking of an inner turn of mind that favors, empowers, and enables our profession and our brothers and sisters at the bar. It is secret, because it is unobserved and therefore unrestrained-by the judges themselves or by the legal community that so closely surrounds and nurtures us. It is an ambient bias. The result is the incremental preference for the lawyered solution, the fee-paid intervention or pro bono project, the lawyer-driven procedure, the appellate dispensation-and the confidence and faith that these things produce the best results. It is an insidious bias, because it is hard to make out, in the vast maze of judicial work and outcomes, the statutes, doctrines, and precedents that are woven together like an elaborate oriental rug in which the underlying image of the dragon emerges only after you stare for a while. I discern in this jumble a bias in favor of the bar and lawyers: what they do; how they do it; and how they prosper in goods and influence. This is the "figure in the carpet."' This bias has several effects and ramifications. Judges all too frequently frame legal doctrines without considering the litigants' transaction costs. Considering how many of us conscientiously think hard about the economic consequences of the outcomes we adopt, it seems strange that our cases reflect an almost complete disregard and ignorance of the costs, uncertainties, and delays inflicted by the judicial process itself. I think that is because judges as lawyers cannot see as a problem the activity and busyness from which our brothers and sisters at the bar draw their livelihood, their career advancement, their distinction, and (often) their sense of purpose in life. All of this depends on the ceaseless turning of the legal machine. Judges tend to assume that the adversary process assures a fair fight and a just outcome. And judges work hard to be fair as between the adversarial positions presented. But almost always, the adversaries on all sides are lawyers; so adversariness is no great engine for assuring fairness when it comes to the allocation of decision-making power between lawyers (adversaries all) and the institutions and populations outside our profession. The result is not that lawyers and the legal profession always win in court

1. See Henry James, The Figure in the Carpet, reprinted in The Figure in the Carpet and Other Stories (Frank Kermode ed., Penguin Books 1986). 2007] THE SECRET LIFE OF JUDGES 2857 contests (even though they are on both sides); but, there is no doubt that they get to punch above their weight. As I hope I have made clear, I am talking about altruistic litigation as well as hourly fee-paid work and work on contingency. For all the good that public interest lawyers do (and it is a great deal), some of it results in the short circuit of democratic decision making and coerced policy choices. Thus, the threat of litigation often compels school boards to suppress all orthodoxies except those endorsed by the cadres of constitutional lawyers and constitutional law professors. A school-board member exercising fiduciary duties will bow to anticipated demands rather than bear the cost of exercising or testing the board's own rights, if only because the cost of litigating a flag, a reference to God, a locker search, a dirty word, or something like that, can easily cost the school board the annual services of a music teacher or a teacher of remedial reading. To my observation, judges are blind to this. I think that is because public interest litigation greatly enhances lawyer influence and-not at all incidentally-increases the influence and power of judges. Judges love these kinds of cases. Public interest cases afford a judge sway over public policy, enhance the judicial role, make the judge more conspicuous, and keep the law clerks happy. Whether fee-paid or pro bono publico, when lawyers present big issues to the courts, the judges receive the big issues with grateful hands; the bar patrols against inroads on jurisdiction and independence and praises the expansion of legal authority; and together we smugly congratulate ourselves on expanding what we are pleased to call the rule of law. Among the results are the displacement of legislative and executive power, the subordination of other disciplines and professions, and the reduction of whole enterprises and industries to damages. Examples come ready to hand, though, speaking as I do as a judge, I am constrained from citing specifics of controversies that may come before me. In generalities, let me observe, * Judicial power over the legislature and the executive is dilated by constitutional litigation, much of which is lawyer-driven. Often, the plaintiff's standing is made to rest on largely notional, abstract harms (like annoyance or anxiety), and sometimes the existence of the plaintiff is a recruitment detail that is easily arranged. * Through such constitutional litigation, judges get to direct the work of educators, police, child protection officers, and many other professionals who have training to discharge critical responsibilities that require their expertise and experience. " Class actions and consent decrees allow judges to operate prisons and schools, to force appropriations, and to channel funds. * In mass tort, judges hold in their hands the fate of vast enterprises and can cause their extinction, with capitalization 2858 FORDHAMLA WREVIEW [Vol. 75

forfeit to distribution between lawyers and plaintiffs and workers let go. Judges who issue expansive rulings in these spheres enjoy wide esteem and reputation. There are judges whose fine reputations rest in part on the ability to handle and administer innumerable claims through litigation and settlement, pretty much without regard to whether the claims themselves are based on fraud, corrupt experts, perjury, and other things that would be deplored and persecuted by the legal profession if done within other 2 commercial fields. The broadest judicial bias I see, and the one I will describe most vaguely, is the bias in favor of legal complexity. The volumes of the third edition of the Federal Reporter spread themselves like kudzu vine over the shelves of law libraries. I will offer no example, because I would be honor-bound to cite myself as a chief offender, but it is a problem when the complexity of the law causes laymen to view the legal process as either political or as essentially random. This phenomenon is made visible in the papers of pro se litigants, who rarely bother to read the trial court decisions that reject their claims, and proceed to appeal on the theory (perhaps not altogether misguided) that the sheer, ramified, sprawling patterns of law will (in the hands of the right judge) yield a substantial payment or a sweet revenge. It is an observed fact that the complexity of doctrines and opinions (not to mention the discovery of new doctrines) evokes praise and respect from within the profession. But our highly ramified litigation system imposes vast costs on other fields of endeavor, on our democratic freedoms, and on the unrepresented and the non-litigious. The law reviews seem to have exhausted all topics dealing with bias in the law and the ethics and infractions of other professions. I asked one of my law clerks to check to see how many articles have dealt with the bias of judges toward the dominance and control of the legal profession, and my clerk came up dry.3 That does not surprise me, because if judges have this unconscious bias, so (I think) do law professors, for the same reasons-and students, for the same (and other) reasons. Scholarly papers undertake to expose and demonstrate the institutional and cultural biases of the law in every direction but this one. It is not for me to say whether I am making the point of this lecture effectively; but at least I can say that the competition is thin.

2. This point has been made in the asbestos context. See, e.g., Lester Brickman, Ethical Issues in Asbestos Litigation, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 833, 911 (2005) ("[T]he pervasiveness of the absence of application of ethical rules to asbestos litigation and to a large extent, to asbestos bankruptcy proceedings as well, can only stand as an indictment of the courts, disciplinary authorities and indeed, the legal profession."); Lester Brickman, On the Theory Class's Theories of Asbestos Litigation: The Disconnect Between Scholarship and Reality, 31 Pepp. L. Rev. 33, 37 (2003). 3. Subsequent to this Lecture, Professor Benjamin Barton has posted a paper that discusses this bias. See Benjamin H. Barton, Do Judges Systematically Favor the Interests of the Legal Profession? (Apr. 3, 2007) (unpublished manuscript), available at http://papers.ssm.com/sol3/papers.cftnabstractid=976478 2007] THE SECRET LIFE OF JUDGES 2859

Why do we not notice this bias that I am talking about? If you are with me so far, and you now agree (or started out believing) that judges have a bias in favor of legalism and the legal profession, you may wonder as I have, why it is not noticed. Actually, it is a very familiar phenomenon that we do not recognize our bias as such. One tends to assume that bias has a nasty face, and that decent people shrink away instinctively. But some forms of bias are culturally embedded and are exercised with popular or elite approval. Bias is not a moral evil. Everyone feels tugs of loyalty; everyone should. The bias I am talking about is more finely characterized as a tropism, an instinctive turning to follow a source of vital energy. That is what the sunflower does. But it is one thing to turn to follow the sun, and it is another to follow the American Bar Association (ABA), the law schools, law clerks, and the sound of applause. Judges are susceptible to the opinions of others in our profession. But the bias in favor of more law, more procedure, and more process is in great measure bred in the bone of a lawyer. A judge is trained in the law; virtually all of us have high self-approval and a high regard for our profession, its processes, its culture and values, and its judgments-the profession which (after all) did loft judges to the bench, where we presumably wanted to go. The tropism in favor of what lawyers do, and our tendency to expand the spheres of activity in which lawyers act and control, comes clothed in virtue. It is seen by us mainly as respect for due process, as the open door of the courthouse, as a flowering of the rule of law-and so excesses are viewed with indulgence as a Tocquevillian quirk of the American character. But it is unbecoming for judges to dismiss this phenomenon. It matters that our conduct as judges is reinforced by the support and praise that we get from colleagues, lawyers, bar associations, and law schools. I think fair- minded people should recognize the dangers that arise when judges, as the final arbiters for allocating vast power, money, and influence, are all members of the same (self-regulating) profession-and often of the same professional groups and social environments. It is a matter of like calling unto like. Judges adhere to tight ethical constraints that keep us honest in that way and to that degree; but (ironically) some of those same constraints tend to reinforce our professional bias by insulating us from the influences of politics and (non-law) commerce. Unless we make an effort, we can become disconnected from the values and perceptions of the larger public. The more we obey the constraints that isolate us within a circle of legal culture, the more we are left to be judged, evaluated, and flattered (or not) by the nourishing, attentive, knowledgeable circle of lawyers, law students, and professors-which (to make matters worse) includes often the most charming and scintillating people in the community. The mystique of the judicial process, and its power and pretension in this country, is pretty much all based on the idea of neutrality. If that idea is 2860 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 75 deflated, by puncture or slow leak, it is bad for judges and for the larger community. Our work is subject to hostile critiques; and, if we do not acknowledge and restrain our bias, others will notice, and forces will marshal to rein us in. These critiques are often classified as attacks on judicial independence, and resisted as interference, or dismissed as ignorant. Thus, a great theme of the legal profession is emphatic support for judicial independence. That is a good thing, and I enjoy my independence as much as the next judge; but judges should consider and appreciate that one effect (maybe a motive) of the bar's avid support of judicial independence is to make judges "independent" of many influences (good and bad) that compete with the dominant influence over judges that is exerted by fellow lawyers, bar associations, and law professors. This support of judicial power by the bar may be a pillar of law, but it can also operate as group loyalty, the protection of turf, or a reciprocal commitment to the ascendency of judges and lawyers. This bias I am talking about keeps us from seeing obvious things. For example, bar associations nowadays are chiefly trade groups. It is naive to think that the legal profession is the only disinterested player in our economic life. And bar groups are highly political. The ABA has formally adopted and announced hundreds of positions on virtually every issue in political dispute: You can look them up. It lobbies for those views in legislatures; it promotes them in amicus briefs filed in the courts. Yet hundreds of federal judges are members; thousands in the state and local courts. The canons of judicial conduct4 make space for that anomaly. The canons broadly warn that "[a] judge should refrain from political activity." 5 But the same canon (7) has a proviso: "this should not prevent a judge from engaging in the activities described in Canon 4,"' 6 which says that "[a] judge may serve as a member, officer, or director of an organization.., devoted to the improvement of the law."'7 And the commentary positively "encourage[s]" a judge to "contribute to the improvement of the law" by various means, expressly including "through a bar association." 8 Hospitably, the commentary allows a judge to "receive as a gift travel expense reimbursement including the cost of transportation, lodging, and meals, for the judge and a relative incident to the judge's attendance at a bar-related function." 9 The legal profession, like all other fields, should be able to tap the experience and wisdom of its leading members, judges among them. And

4. Code of Conduct for United States Judges (2000), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch I.html. 5. Id. Canon 7. 6. Id. Canon 7C. 7. Id. Canon 4C. 8. Id. Canon 4 cmt. 9. Id. Canon 5C(4) cmt. 2007] THE SECRET LIFE OFJUDGES 2861 there are times and places for that; at one time, the organized bar may have been such a forum. But now? Judges who are members of the ABA are technically in an auxiliary for judges in which they presumably participate in the development of legal ideas. But allowing judges to join a trade association so that they can collaborate with the membership in developing the law seems to me to make matters much worse rather than better. In any event, the expedient of a judges' auxiliary would not be tolerated in any other ethical context. If there were a judges' auxiliary to the American Bankers Association or the Brotherhood of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, I am sure they would love to have us, and would happily work with us on shaping legal improvements. What if there were a judges' auxiliary to the Tobacco Institute or the American Insurance Association that paid my way to their conventions (with my relative), where I could work with them shoulder to shoulder on beneficial improvements in the law? Why assume that the improvements favored by the ABA are less self-serving than the improvements favored by other professional and trade groups? When the ABA considers improvements in the law, it usually comes down on the side of punitive damages, attorney's fees, the expansion of causes of action, and new areas of regulation that require maintenance by lawyers (such as speech at election time). I do not claim to be any better than the next one, but I would be uncomfortable being a guest of the ABA on well-oiled occasions when such improvements are discussed. All of this is made worse by the fact that the ABA often litigates as amicus curiae (and I will pass over without comment the ABA's evaluation of judicial nominees). Of course, judges should be involved in the development of the law- case by case, chiefly. No doubt, judges also read some books, go to debates and forums, and attend seminars. But the idea that judges will develop the law under the sponsorship and aegis of a powerful interest group should provoke disquiet-and would, but for the fact that (with some notable exceptions) judges do not see this as an issue. I sometimes think that the problem at bottom is really a lack of respect by lawyers for other people. Judges live chiefly in a circle of lawyers. Our colleagues are lawyers; happily, our friends are lawyers (and I am hoping to keep some after this lecture); the only outside income a federal judge can earn (aside from royalties) is from teaching in law schools (with the idea, I suppose, that they furnish a nonpartisan environment); and the only political and trade organizations we can join are bar associations. But outside that circle there are people who are just as fully absorbed by other pursuits that deserve consideration and respect. Judges need a heightened respect for how nonlawyers solve problems, reach compromises, broker risks, and govern themselves and their institutions. There are lawyers on the one hand; and just about everybody else is the competition in the framing of values and standards of behavior. 2862 FORDHAM LA W REVIEW [Vol. 75

In that competition, judicial bias has eroded the independence and influence of doctors, medical administrators, insurance underwriters, engineers, manufacturers, the military, the police, wardens and corrections officers, the clergy, employers, and teachers and principals. I think that judges ought to appreciate that they operate under an internalized conflict of interest when they deal with all of these categories of people, and others, and that (as someone observed) divided loyalties are rarely divided down the middle. There is a great danger that, by the subordination of other professions, callings, and centers of power (and of their judgment and discretion), we are losing indispensable influences. Another consequence of biased vision is the assumption that if something is of great importance, it can be safely left to lawyers. That is fine when it comes to statutory interpretation and such, but lawyers lack humility in approaching great matters. As judges, we tend to assume that adversarial hearings and expert testimony will render the judge omni-competent and fit to decide the great questions, and that a legal mind is the highest and most useful development of mental capacity. The mind-set is that if something is of great importance-such as speech, thought, and expression; race, identity, and sexuality; life and death-it cannot be safely and properly left chiefly to anyone else. How else does one account for the fixation on issues such as capital punishment and the right to die, given that capital punishment cases are few (at least in these parts), and that death is coming for us as a certainty, regardless of whether we classify it as an entitlement? As we exercise power over all the basic, ultimate, and transcendent things, I think that judges should consider how we inevitably diminish the influence of doctors and juries, clergy and social workers, legislatures, and the ordinary citizen. The legal mind is indispensable to lawyering, and for other purposes it is perfectly okay in its way. But it has its limitations. For example, every problem-solving profession-except ours--quickly adopts as preferred the solution that is simplest, cheapest, and most efficacious, or (as they say) elegant. Also, our legal mind is invasive: It has institutional advantages for subordinating other modalities of thought, and it presses those advantages. And it is triumphalist about its expansions of influence. The uninitiated, who lack the legal mind, are harnessed to our purposes as jurors or are put to the margins. What nonlegal professionals think can be dismissed as arbitrary and capricious, or (if needed to assist the legal process) can be classified as expert opinion, to be weighed by us and by our standards. The legal mind can hold its own with the competition in terms of rigor; I have one, and I make no apology for it. But at least I have come to admit that, depending on the question, the legal mind may be insufficient or may be inferior to the moral imagination; the scientific method; the practical arts of healing, politics, and entrepreneurship; the promptings of loyalty, faith, and patriotism; and the experience and expertise found elsewhere and among others. 2007] THE SECRET LIFE OFJUDGES 2863

If you are not with me this far, you will have little interest in this last question: What can be done to correct this bias and to place the legal profession again on a footing of parity and fair competition with other professionals and activities that have a right to influence in our communities and our culture? In a nutshell, judges should lead the bar in exercising the self-restraint and self-discipline that is incumbent on a profession that has a virtual monopoly on legislative power and a monopoly by patent on the power of the judiciary, and that is largely self-regulating. Other professions, by ethics or honor, exert the imagination and self- possession to avoid exercising all the power they have. Let me give an incendiary example. When a military force occupies a conquered province, the military has vast power and may be tempted to run things in a way that best serves the dominance and comfort of the military profession. A military solution can be found for every challenge; such solutions fit the salient talents and skill- sets of military commanders. No doubt it is of the greatest convenience to the military and a great comfort to them to impose early curfews; to censor letters; to close the outspoken newspapers and the satirical magazines; to take over the radio, the police, and the prisons; to shoot looters; to draft strikers; to favor military justice; and to commandeer all the better hotels. I think there is a natural temptation for the military officers in charge to do all these things because these are measures that subordinate a lot of conduct that undermines military administration, and because no doubt lifelong professional military officers might believe that these measures are effective and fair and constitute the best design for the organization of the society under their thumbs. Others in the military might applaud the tidy administration that results. We (in the profession of law) recoil from such measures in part because it is not our profession; it does not fit our salient talents and skill-sets; it puts to the margin what we do and the sphere in which we operate; and so we lack faith in it. It seems to us, viscerally illegitimate. But an enlightened military recognizes that imposition of all these measures on an ongoing or permanent basis improperly subordinates other spheres of life. The military types (I am not one) seem to control themselves through a concept of honor. Maybe judges should consider their example. I concede that a country could do worse than suffer rule by lawyers: I would prefer a tyranny of law to life under a military regime. But outside our professional sphere, the dominance of the legal profession and the judiciary is resented more than we appreciate. As a matter of self-awareness and conscience, judges should accept that the legal mind is not the best policy instrument, and that lawyer-driven processes and lawyer-centered solutions can be unwise, insufficient, and unjust, even if our friends and colleagues in the legal profession lead us that way. For the judiciary, this would mean a reduced role, but not a diminished one if the judiciary is elevated by considerations of honor, self- restraint, and respect for other influences. Notes & Observations Page 1 of 1

Neil Gillespie

From: "Bronson, Kristi R." To: Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 9:11 AM Subject: RE: Neil J. Gillespie Oath of Candidate Write-In For President and Vice President Dear Mr. Gillespie –

The deadline for submitting the oath of candidate for a write-in candidate for the office of President was July 12, 2016. Accordingly, your submission is untimely and will not be processed.

I trust this is responsive to your inquiry.

Regards,

Kristi Reid Bronson, Chief Division of Elections, Bureau of Election Records (850) 245-6240

This response is provided for reference only and does not constitute legal advice or representation. As applied to a particular set of facts or circumstances, interested parties should refer to the Florida Statutes and applicable case law, and/or consult a private attorney before drawing any legal conclusions or relying upon the information provided. Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications to or from state officials regarding state business constitute public records and are available to the public and media upon request unless the information is subject to a specific statutory exemption. Therefore, your e-mail message may be subject to public disclosure.

From: DivElections Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 8:03 AM To: Bronson, Kristi R. Subject: FW: Neil J. Gillespie Oath of Candidate Write-In For President and Vice President

From: Neil Gillespie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:05 PM To: Detzner, Kenneth W. ; DivElections Cc: Neil Gillespie Subject: Neil J. Gillespie Oath of Candidate Write-In For President and Vice President

The Department of State is committed to excellence. Please take our Customer Satisfaction Survey.

9/1/2016 VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP296243338 August 31, 2016

Ken Detzner, Secretary of State Email: [email protected]

Florida Department of State Division of Elections Email: [email protected]

R. A. Gray Building, Room 316 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Dear Secretary of State Detzner, and the Division of Elections,

Enclosed you will find my Oath of Candidate Write-In For President and Vice President. A qualified write-in candidate for Vice President is to be announced. To the extent my Oath of Candidate does not comply with F.S. § 103.022, I request a waiver. In the alternative I may appeal, or make a Constitutional challenge. You may provide information on that process.

In compliance with F.S. § 103.022, Write-in candidates for President and Vice President, enclosed is a list containing the names and addresses of 29 persons to serve as electors.

Not later than September 1, 2016, the candidate submits a list containing the names and addresses of 29 persons to serve as electors to the Department of State.

The list is for the first 29 qualified names and addresses that appear in the 2016 Oak Run Community Directory. F.S. § 103.022 does not prohibit this approach that I am aware.

Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop Ocala, Florida 34481 Telephone: 352-854-7807 Email: [email protected]

Attachments/Enclosures OAT-H OF CANDIDATE (Section 103.022, Florida Statutes) WRITE-IN FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

OFFICE USE ONLY

We, Neil J. Gillespie , write-in candidate for President (PLEASE PRINT NAME)

and ~ G\. I write-in candidate for Vice ~------k!-,; (PLEASE PRINT NAME)

President, state that we possess all the qualifications required by law for the office of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States, respectively, and that we will accept the office if elected. x x Signature of Candidate for Vice President

Pursuant to Section 103.022. F.S.• write-in candidates shall file with the Department of State a certificate naming the required number of persons to serve as electors.

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ~IM , '0 V'j

~orn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by the above named persons this 3\o\. day of ~t3'~\ 1 20..lk.-.

Personally Known: or

Produced Identification: ----'/..

Type of Identification Produced: \\""11", ELISA MCLAUGHLIN ",,\\ ft't PI.J. '" d f~mt'49~~ Notary Public - State of Fiori a E. • •E CommIssion /I FF 896953 -:'!f~ Aug 9 2019 ~t~ ~ My Comm. Expires ' ',,"f' OF f\.'{\' "",u"'\

OS-DE 85 (Rev. 10/10) Rule 1S-2.0OO1. F.A.C. AALTO, Tauno &Sally Louise AIKENS, Glenn &Florence ALVES, Gilbert & Charlotte 229-0965 237-9961 237-6875 10875 SW 90th Tr C 37 FL 6805 SW 111 th Lp FO A 10 PA 7348 SW 115th PI HS A 34 ABBATE, AKERS, Connie ANDERSOM, James &Patricia nfa 305-942-1921 479-409-3126 8490 SW 1D9th Ln Rd 4 E 10 10819 SW 86th Av 12 D 49 AUS 7326 SW 111th Ln TF I 4 TX/:' ABBOTT, Jeannine I GRAY, David & Barbara ALBRIGHT, Bob &Anne ANDERSON, Arthur & Donna 317-517-9402 873-4134 854-3447 9057 SW 108th PI A 23 IN 11083 SW 73rd Tr TF G 26 NY 11605 SW 71st Cr GV G 19 ABBOTT, Joan S ALBRITTON, Chris I SMITH, Sherry ANDERSON, Dave 861-G661 304-7849 854-8008 11456 SW 67th Ct BG F 5 FL 8630 SW 108th Ln Rd 12 C 7 OH 8685 SW 116th PI Rd 8 C 3 ABELE, Julian ALCOTT, William & Lynn ANDERSON, Erma 237·2198 609-713-1050 291-1232 7149 SW 113th Lp LS A 5 11233 SW 73rd Cr TF H 12 NJ 10963 SW 86th Tr 2 E 13 ABRAMS, Ken & Kathy ALDUINO, Robert & Karen ANDERSON, Gloria 620-0022 631-579-5927 854-7507 7421 SW 111th PI TF F 13 IL 11702 SW 71st Cr GV F 2 NY 11564 SW 71st Cr GV G 6 ABRAMS, Tommy & Virginia ALEXANDER, Mary & BROOKS, Fred ANDERSON, Gloria, Dan, Cheryl, Stephe! 873-3897 708-602-9016 873-3953 11528 SW 89th Tr 8 A 42 TN 11408 SW 82nd Tr 9 A 7 IL 11427 SW 82nd Av 9 A 13 ABT, Murray & Iia ALGIRE, M and D ANDERSON, Jerry & Barb 854-8098 291-0291 216-4808 10920 SW 86th Av 2 F 37 AL 10654 SW 71 st Cr EP 0 86 11637 SW 70th Ct GV A 20 ACCOMANDO, Richard ALIBERTI, Ron I SHELTON, Joanne ANDERSON, Lexie & Joanne 484-8767 873-3850 237-9770 11539 SW 89th Tr 8 G 6 10808 SW 86th Av 12 A 69 TX 8221 SW 115th Ln 9 E 7 ACCORDINO, Sam &Angie ALIENGENA, Harry ANDERSON, Lou &Alice 300-307-8288 854-6859 854-3254 10837 SW 91 st Ct C 3 11564 SW 75th Cr TP G 24 MA 8761 SW 116th Ln Rd 8 B 13 ACOSTA, Theresa ALIX, Normand ANDERSON, Pat 291-1975 570-490-7534 873-4814 10907 SW 83rd Av 5 E 4 FL 8541 SW 108th PI Rd 12 A 50 CAN 7819 SW 117th St Rd TP E 18 ACQUARD, Russell & Jan ALLEN, James & Kathy ANDERSON, Robert & Marianne 237-8636 724-674-7946 861-1483 11436 SW 76th Cr PV B 5 NY 7452 SW 111th Ln TF E 11 PA 11731 SW 77th Cr TP E 42 ADAMS, Errol! &June ALLEN, Perry &Judy ANDREWS, Edward 207-5202 873-8947 237-2237 10961 SW 84th Av 4 A 11749 SW 79th Cr TP C 26 NC 8016 SW 108th Lp 10 D 27 ADAMS, Michael & Tanya ALLETTO, Alfred & Florence ANDREWS, Gary & Veronica 433-3702 291-1191 861-1088 11432 SW 82nd Cr WS A 15 FL 10933 SW 84th Av 4 A 5 CT 7143 SW 113th Lp LS A 3 ADAMS, Nelson & Carmen ALLGOOD, Frank & Helen I GAGE, Mary ANDREWS, Irene 861-2348 237-7812 854-1311 11719 SW 79th Cr TP C 21 IL 8595 SW 108th PI Rd 12 B 1 FL 7952 SW 115th Lp TP A 10 ADAMS, Sheila ALLIE, David & Gerry ANDREWS, James & Dawn 237-2723 861-1259 873-4603 6590 SW 111th Lp FO E 11 OH 7171 SW 113th Lp LS A 11 IL 10859 SW 69th Cr CO C 22 ADAMS, Steve &Sonja ALLISON, Richard & Carol ANDRUS, James & Sheila B 861-8685 237-5780 413-563-4492 7730 SW 114th Lp TG A 55 11081 SW 73rd Ct TF H 22 VA 8720 SW 108th Ln 2 D 15 ADDINGTON, William & Delores ALLOR, Steve & Marla ANDZESKI, Joseph 861-5756 237-7988 236-0035 11101 SW 69th Cr CO B 2 MD 8386 SW 109th Ln 4 D 28MD/WV 10975 SW 86th Tr 2 E 11 ADKINS, William &Ana Diaz ALLORO, Andy &Jeanette ANSPACHER,Mary 786-546-6986 854-1429 861-2361 7798 SW 114th Lp TG A 40 FL 7774 SW 114th Lp TG A 46 NY 6759 SW 114th St Rd BG B 18 ADLER, Bob &Fran ALLUMS, Ted & Earleen ANTILL, Dan &Susan 854-6629 854-8546 724-833-0311 10826 SW 83rd Av 3 8 35 CT 8394 SW 109th Ln Rd 4 E 18 IL 8192 SW 115th St Rd WS C 5 ADLER, Nina ALMEIDA, Carlos & Kathleen ANTOINE, Betty I SHEDLOCK, George 291-1534 237-5465 502-435-5709 11644 SW 75th Cr TP G 42 OH 7250 SW 115th PI HS A 48 CT 8108 SW 108th Ln Rd 5 D 17 ADLER, Paul & Olive ALPER, Leslie & Leona ANTRAM, Paul &Susan 873-6730 237-1112 237-0507 11253 SW 72nd Av LS C 4 GA 11300 SW 78th Cr TG A 37 FL 8072 SW 116th Lp WS E 1 AGRIPPA, Donald &Elaine ALTIERI, Angelo ANZALONE, James W &Naomi 873-2696 873-9084 291-7507 10953 SW 87th Ct 2 o 4 11565 SW 89th Av 8 E 4 CT 111 01 SW 73rd Ct TF H 20 AHER, Patrick &Blanche ALTIERI, Emil &Patricia ANZALONE, Marianne I COHEN, Phil 861-6398 237-0344 237-7227 10857 SW 91 st Tr C 16 MA 8152 SW 108th Lp 10 C 11 CT 7512 SW 113th PI PV D 8 Po'" http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=103.022&URL=0100-01...

Select Year:

The 2016 Florida Statutes

Title IX Chapter 103 View Entire ELECTORS AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS; POLITICAL PARTIES; EXECUTIVE Chapter ELECTIONS COMMITTEES AND MEMBERS 103.022 Write-in candidates for President and Vice President.—Persons seeking to qualify for election as write-in candidates for President and Vice President of the United States may have a blank space provided on the general election ballot for their names to be written in by filing an oath with the Department of State at any time after the 57th day, but before noon of the 49th day, prior to the date of the primary election in the year in which a presidential election is held. The Department of State shall prescribe the form to be used in administering the oath. The candidates shall file with the department a certificate naming the required number of persons to serve as electors. Such write-in candidates shall not be entitled to have their names on the ballot. History.—s. 15, ch. 81-105; s. 9, ch. 83-251; s. 19, ch. 2005-286.

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" To: "Ken Detzner" ; Cc: "Neil Gillespie" Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:05 PM Attach: Neil J. Gillespie Oath of Candidate Write-In For President and Vice President.pdf Subject: Neil J. Gillespie Oath of Candidate Write-In For President and Vice President

8/31/2016 Page 1 of 1

Neil Gillespie

From: "Neil Gillespie" To: "Neil Gillespie" Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:06 PM Attach: ATT00022.txt Subject: Read: Neil J. Gillespie Oath of Candidate Write-In For President and Vice President This is a receipt for the mail you sent to "Ken Detzner" ; at 8/31/2016 10:05 PM

This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 8/31/2016 10:06 PM

8/31/2016 Page 1 of 1

Neil Gillespie

From: "Detzner, Kenneth W." To: "Neil Gillespie" Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:36 PM Attach: ATT00005.eml Subject: Read: Neil J. Gillespie Oath of Candidate Write-In For President and Vice President

The Department of State is committed to excellence. Please take our Customer Satisfaction Survey.

8/31/2016 https://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processPOD?Requester=&tracknum=1Z64589FP296243338&refNumbers=&loc=en_US

Proof of Delivery Close Window

Dear Customer, This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below. Tracking Number: 1Z64589FP296243338 Service: UPS Ground Weight: 1.00 lb Shipped/Billed On: 08/31/2016 Delivered On: 09/01/2016 11:35 A.M. Delivered To: 500 S BRONOUGH ST 3 316 TALLAHASSEE, FL, US 32399 Received By: MYNARD

Left At: Inside Delivery Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you. Sincerely, UPS Tracking results provided by UPS: 09/01/2016 11:46 A.M. ET Print This Page Close Window https://www.ups.com/uis/create?ActionOriginPair=default___PrintWindowPage&key=labelWindow&type=html&loc=en_US&instr=A&doc=shipment...

UPS Internet Shipping: View/Print Label

1. Ensure there are no other shipping or tracking labels attached to your package. Select the Print button on the print dialog box that appears. Note: If your browser does not support this function select Print from the File menu to print the label.

2. Fold the printed label at the solid line below. Place the label in a UPS Shipping Pouch. If you do not have a pouch, affix the folded label using clear plastic shipping tape over the entire label.

3. GETTING YOUR SHIPMENT TO UPS Customers with a Daily Pickup Your driver will pickup your shipment(s) as usual.

Customers without a Daily Pickup Take your package to any location of The UPS Store®, UPS Access Point(TM) location, UPS Drop Box, UPS Customer Center, UPS Alliances (Office Depot® or Staples®) or Authorized Shipping Outlet near you. Items sent via UPS Return Services(SM) (including via Ground) are also accepted at Drop Boxes. To find the location nearest you, please visit the 'Find Locations' Quick link at ups.com. Schedule a same day or future day Pickup to have a UPS driver pickup all of your Internet Shipping packages. Hand the package to any UPS driver in your area. UPS Access PointTM UPS Access PointTM THE UPS STORE THE UPS STORE 11100 SW 93RD COURT RD 3101 SW 34TH AVE OCALA ,FL 34481 OCALA ,FL 34474

FOLD HERE Drop-Of f Package Receipt· 1 of 1 .1HIS~_NOT A SHIP£ING LABEL. PLEASE SAVE FOR YOUR RECORDS. DROP-OFF LOCATION. DROP-OFF DATE/TIME: The UPS Store #5520 Wed 31 Aug 2016 5:20 PM 11100 SW 93 COURT RD STE 10 ESTIMATED PICKUP DATE. UPS Wed 31 Aug 2016 1pkg (352) 402-0099 CUSTOMER: Not Provided 10 Type: Not Provided TOTAL PACKAGES· 1pkg

TRACKING NUMBER CARRIER & SERVICE WEIGHT 1Z64589FP296243338 UPS Ground o 15 lbs

This receipt list5 each package received by The UPS Store 115520 and indicates that the information for each packaEje has been transmitted to each car r ier 's data system This receipt is not conf irmat ion that the car r ier has pickt!d up i:he package& To verify when and if a package has been picked up, enter one of the following web addresses in your browser and enter the tracking numbers listed above http://theupsstore.com (select Tracking, the" enter Tracking II) You acknowledge that the shipment servicet. provided by The UPS Store 115520 for the listed packages are subject to and gover-ned by each Carrier Agreement, if applicable. the Rates and Service Guide for each car r ier, and the tar iff in effect at the time of shipment

Thank you for visiting The UPS Store Where holidays are made easy, Ask about our custom hol iday cards & calendars today

Powered by iShip(r) 08/31/2016 02:19 PM Pacific Time http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/if_you_cast_a_write_in_vote_for_president_will_it_count_state_laws_differ/

Retrieved on Nov 8, 2016, 12:10 pm CST

Home / Daily News / If you cast a write-in vote for president,…

ELECTION LAW If you cast a write-in vote for president, will it count? State laws differ POSTED NOV 07, 2016 07:00 AM CST

BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS (HTTP://WWW.ABAJOURNAL.COM/AUTHORS/4/)

Thinking of casting a write-in vote for president? It may not be counted. You can write in anyone on the ballot in 10 states and Washington, D.C., the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write- in-votes/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_gfx-writein-9pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory) reports. But you will face more hurdles if you want your write-in to count in other states. Eight states don’t even have a line for write-ins, according to the article. Thirty-two states won’t count write-ins unless a candidate is registered with the state before the election. The jurisdictions allowing write-ins for anyone are: Alabama, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming. The states that don’t allow write-ins are: Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota. There are additional restrictions in some states, including some of those that allow write-ins for anyone. In Mississippi, for example, write-ins won’t be considered unless a candidate on the ballot dies, resigns, withdraws or is removed from the ballot. Some states won’t allow a write-in to win unless additional paperwork is filed after the election. And in some states, preciseness counts. Nicknames and initials may not be allowed.

18 https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_gfx-writein-9pm:homepage/story

Campaign 2016

WRITE IN ANYONE No prior ﬁling is required for write-in candidates 10 STATES + D.C.

VT NH

OR WY IA PA NJ RI

DC MS AL

LIMITS ON WRITE-IN CANDIDATES Prior ﬁling is required to be an oﬃcial write-in candidate No option to write in 32 STATES 8 STATES ME WI WA ID MT ND MN IL MI NY MA IN OH CT NV SD CA UT CO NE MO KY WV VA MD DE AZ KS TN NC NM AR SC GA OK LA AKTX FL HI https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_gfx-writein-9pm:homepage/story By Denise Lu and Kevin Uhrmacher Nov. 3, 2016

n an election year with two historically unpopular nominees, write-in candidates can be enticing to undecided voters who can’t find someone to get behind, or who are searching for a way to voice their disappointment.

And it’s not just the Bernie Bros: Even high-profile politicians like Republican senators Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Rob Portman (Ohio) say they will write in Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence.

[ How to vote in your state]

But because of state laws restricting ballot access, writing in a candidate is not as simple as it sounds. There are eight states where ballots won’t even have a space for write-ins. In 32 others, write-in candidates have to file with the state prior to the election to be counted as official candidates.

That means that even if a write-in candidate wins the popular vote — an extremely unlikely scenario — their votes won’t be counted if the candidate hasn’t pre-registered. States often throw these write-in votes for unregistered candidates into an “All others” category and don’t tally them up individually.

[ As Clinton builds a lead, write-in campaigns flower and falter]

Every state will have at least three options on its ballot for president: Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Donald Trump and Libertarian Gary Johnson. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_gfx-writein-9pm:homepage/story

CANDIDATES ON EVERY BALLOT

Hillary Clinton, Democrat Donald Trump, Republican

Gary Johnson, Libertarian

Green Party candidate Jill Stein will be on the ballot in all but six states, but she is available as a write-in candidate in half of those six.

Independent candidate Evan McMullin is on the ballot in 11 states, including his home state of Utah. If the conservative-leaning candidate wins there, it would be the first time someone other than a major-party nominee would win electoral votes since 1968. Voters can officially write him in at polling places in more than two dozen other states.

On theBALLOT ballot ACCESSCan FOR be writtenOTHER inCANDIDATES Not an option OptionJill in Stein, 47 states Green + D.C. Darrell Option Castle, in 46 states Constitution + D.C.

EvanOption McMullin, in 43 states Independent + D.C. Roque “Rocky”Option Dein 35 La statesFuente, + D.C.Independent https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_gfx-writein-9pm:homepage/story

For comparison, here are the places where voters can write in anyone — from Bernie Sanders to Mickey Mouse.

BALLOT ACCESS FOR OTHERS NOT RUNNING Can be written in Not an option

Bernie Sanders Paul Ryan, Mickey Mouse, others Option in 11 states + D.C. Option in 10 states + D.C. (an oﬃcial write-in in California) ME ME

WI VT NH WI VT NH

WA ID MT ND MN IL MI NY MA WA ID MT ND MN IL MI NY MA

OR NV WY SD IA IN OH PA NJ CT RI OR NV WY SD IA IN OH PA NJ CT RI

CA UT CO NE MO KY WV VA MD DE CA UT CO NE MO KY WV VA MD DE

AZ NM KS AR TN NC SC DC AZ NM KS AR TN NC SC DC OK LA MS AL GA OK LA MS AL GA HI AKTX FL HI AK TX FL

To be an official write-in in California, 55 people must sign a https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_gfx-writein-9pm:homepage/story petition for a nominee. But that person doesn’t have to consent, which is why Bernie Sanders is an official write-in in California even though he isn’t running for president.

[ Bernie Sanders: ‘This is not the time for a protest vote’]

Most states have fewer than a half-dozen presidential candidates on the ballot, but write-in options exist in most states.

NUMBER OF CANDIDATES On the ballot Can be written in States where voters can write in anyone Iowa 10 on-ballot candidates New Jersey 9 Mississippi 7 Vermont 6 Wyoming 6 These 10 states, New 5 Pennsylvania 5 plus the District, RhodeHampshire Island 5 allow anyone to Alabama 4 D.C. 4 be written in. Oregon 4 States with some requirements to become an official write-in On-ballot candidates Total candidates Washington 7 68 Maryland 4 56 Minnesota 9 53 Montana 5 46 Idaho 8 45 Candidates in West Virginia 5 39 Minnesota and New York 4 36 Delaware 4 35 Maryland could Nebraska 4 32 declare a write-in Alaska 6 31 Kentucky 6 29 candidacy as Colorado 22 28 In Colorado, Kansas 5 26 late as a week Utah 10 25 22 candidates before the Connecticut 4 24 will appear on Ohio 5 23 election. Virginia 5 21 the ballot. Arizona 4 20 Georgia 3 20 Indiana 3 18 Texas 4 17 Tennessee 7 15 Wisconsin 7 15 Michigan 6 13 Florida 6 12 North Dakota 6 12 California 6 11 Missouri 5 10 Massachusetts 4 9 Maine 4 8 In North Carolina, 500 voters need Illinois* 4 4 to sign a petition for a write-in North Carolina 3 4 candidate. Jill Stein’s is the only States with no write-incampaign voting that met this mark. Louisiana 13 Arkansas 8 New Mexico 8 South Carolina 7 Hawaii 5 Nevada 5 Oklahoma requires South Dakota 4 signatures from a large Oklahoma 3 number of voters to *State-level data is not available To be an official write-in candidate in Illinois candidates must file with each county https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_gfx-writein-9pm:homepage/story get on the ballot.

Getting ballot access can be hard for smaller campaigns with fewer resources. Darrell Castle, the candidate for the Constitution Party, is on the ballot in more than two dozen states. Castle said his campaign has faced ballot access obstacles in California, Texas and Oklahoma. “Those states are virtually impossible for a party like mine because they cost so much money,” Castle said.

Castle isn’t on the ballot in Oklahoma. To be on the ballot there required signatures from at least 3 percent of all votes cast in the state in 2012, or about 40,000 signatures. Castle says this would likely require hiring professionals who often charge a few dollars for each signature. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_gfx-writein-9pm:homepage/story Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente is running as an independent and is on the ballot in 20 states. As other non-major-party candidates have promised to do, De La Fuente has mounted several legal challenges for ballot access.

Even in states where a voter can write in anyone, there are still hurdles for a candidate to emerge victorious. Some states and the District of Columbia require post-election paperwork from any winning write-in. In Mississippi, write-ins are considered only in the event of the death, resignation, withdrawal or removal of a candidate already on the ballot.

States also differ in how they standardize write-ins on a ballot. Aside from spelling a candidate's name correctly, some are more lenient with nicknames and initials than others. Massachusetts allows candidates to run sticker campaigns, and Pennsylvania allows stamp campaigns. Some others strictly prohibit these, making it even harder for write-in candidates to get any votes.

NEW HAMPSHIRE SOUTH DAKOTA COLORADO SAMPLE BALLOT SAMPLE BALLOT SAMPLE BALLOT 22 presidential candidates 5 presidential candidates 4 presidential candidates and write-in option and write-in option and no write-in option https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_gfx-writein-9pm:homepage/story

Not that people won’t try. In 2012, a man legally changed his name to “Santa Claus” and registered as a write-in candidate in Maryland. In all, 625 people wrote in “Santa Claus” for their presidential vote, the most for any write-in in Maryland that year.

[ Who are you writing in? The overwhelming allure of voting for someone who won’t win.]

According to the Federal Election 136,040 votes 0.11% of total Commission, nationwide write-in votes have increased more than fivefold since 1984. This is probably 19,315 votes an underestimate, because some 0.02% of total states only tabulate write-in votes if a race is close. 1984 2012 Note: Totals may not include write-in and blank Write-ins usually account for less votes that were compiled as one total in New than 1 percent of all votes cast. Alaska had the highest share of write-in votes in 2012, at 0.96 percent, two years after the state’s high-profile Senate race was won by a write-in incumbent.

That race was the exception. At current levels, write-in voters alone are not enough to fuel a winning presidential campaign.

But that won’t stop tens of thousands of voters from supporting write-ins in 2016, whether on principle, or as an act of protest of the https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_gfx-writein-9pm:homepage/story two major-party candidates.

Sources: National Association of Secretaries of State, Federal Election Commission, campaign sites, secretary of state sites and state board of election sites.

Note: An earlier version of this graphic mislabeled Darrell Castle’s ballot access. He is on the ballot in Michigan and a write-in candidate in Kentucky. In the state of Washington, candidates may file as an official write-in candidate, but voters can write in anyone. All write-ins are counted together into one pool and will be tallied separately if the amount of all write-ins is significant enough to make a difference in an election outcome. In Oregon, there is no definitive ruling yet on whether the state’s “sore loser” law would be in effect for the presidential election. The law would prevent a candidate who failed to receive the nomination of a major political party in a primary to run again for the same office at the succeeding general election.